I think the real benefit of sites like this are accountability and historic research. Having the ability to see what has been omitted or taken down is far more interesting.
I think what is missing or lost in all of these Bitcoin articles is they are reaction to a fatally flawed central banking system. Of course, anyone who says things like that is immediately labelled a gold bug or belonging to the tin-foil hat club.
> Any currency that isn't backed by (value derived from) a hard asset is a fiat currency.
(I'm not a gold bug, I could care less about gold, if gold offends, substitute some other tangible commodity)
That's my point that Bitcoin is more of a commodity currency and is not (at present) a fiat currency. The fact that the electricity is gone doesn't make any difference. Mining gold requires fuel and labor which is gone, used up, and what remains is gold. This expense is what limits the production of and correlates the commodity to the underlying economy.
What is really interesting is your assertion that the value derives from confidence and not assets. I would argue that value derives from the fact that its supply is limited by the use of resources and labor.
If mining additional Bitcoins at present is not economically viable than Bitcoins are not (currently) a fiat currency. The cost for the fed to increase the money supply is $0, the cost to produce a Bitcoin is equal to the cost of the hardware and electricity to produce it. I'm not sure if the definition would change once the maximum limit of Bitcoins is reached.
(no sarcasm intended) Are you saying that a currency that cannot be controlled (e.g. the money supply controlled by something like a federal reserve) is more dangerous than one that is?
Interesting that the mere mention of "fiat currency" invokes tin-foil hat. Whether Bitcoins can survive the volatility is indeterminate. If it does survive, however, and becomes an alternative to (avert your eyes) fiat currencies, the impact will be far greater than another obscure fiat currency suddenly being used.
The real danger of Bitcoins is not its volatility, but its potential to illustrate the downside of all fiat based currency when compared with something like Bitcoins whose money supply does not fluctuate based upon the needs of a few. If that fact ever reaches the consciousness of enough people worldwide, watch out.
I would say it's a euphemism for debasing just enough to keep a small minority enriched without the masses discovering it via overt price inflation and/or without the masses outside the US realizing that the value of their goods and services are being debased for the same reason.